Friday, May 19, 2017

Good Cop Bad Cop

Many leftists right now think the media is biased for Trump, just as many rightists now think that the media is biased against him. Both are correct, and both are incorrect. Some in the left understand corporate marketing enough to identify spotlighting something as an endorsement, e.g., "There's no such thing as bad publicity." That old saw isn't meant to be taken literally, but it holds a lot of truth. (Assume standard Terrans 2017 for all examples herein.) Prohibit entry to an area, and it becomes more desirable to enter it; advertise a door fee, or a type of watch, as being "too expensive," and you drive traffic to it. "Bad" marketing is in truth good marketing. It drives demand to advertise a strip club as "too scandalous," a Christmas toy as "too hard to find," or a politician as "too serious about doing anti-establishment things." Certain Christian organizations offer great assistance to publishing houses when they lament "this book is too imaginative for children!"

The smarter leftists recognized this early in the campaign, when Trump received massive, early-Rowling-esque, international media attention for being such a popular rebel, therefore causing his books to see a huge increase in sales him to actually become a popular rebel. Even after DACA and Syria, many Trump-supporters still believe the revolution was genuine. No surprises here; Goldman Sachs was a top Obama donor, but many leftists were so desperate to believe in something, anything, that they continued to talk excitedly about how BDS and breaking up the Fed (sic) and reining in the Pentagon (also sic) and ending AIPAC bribery for playing foreign policeman (sic again since they're all heads of the same hydra) were going to happen under Obama. And none of those things happened, in fact they got worse, and like the usual American voter, the poor damaged creatures became in response to these failings more attached to the embodiment of their hopes, rather than less; they had invested so much of their selves, so much of their dreams, in Obama, that when he ended up doing everything Dubya did, including the golfing, they had to believe in him anyway, and they spent 8 years blaming everything bad he did, including proactively mass-massacring Africans, on Dubya and/or "the Republicans" or "the racists" or "the media" Now, having Trump around seems to vindicate them, but the cycle begins anew with desperate Trumpists blaming "the Democrats" or "the globalists" or "the media" for Trump doing none of the things he said he would. I lament their having been betrayed, I pity them their pain, but as ever, the ruse is so elementary it continues to seem deserved. (On the American end of things, of course.)

Reminds this one of my little ditty on dissonance from 2015:
Still Antiwar: Why do you support Obama's war on terror?

Now Curiously Accepting of War: Because it's not his fault. He was mired in it because of Bush and now he can't stop.

Still Antiwar: So if a president isn't responsible for starting a conflict, but is only carrying it on, that president isn't responsible?

Now Curiously Accepting of War: Yes. You can't blame Obama for not leaving the region in shambles after everything Dumbya did to it.

Still Antiwar: It says here that Bill Clinton bombed Iraq almost every week throughout his presidency, and that he viewed invasion as inevitable to protect America's interests in the region. He sanctioned Iraq for years, causing over a million civilian deaths, and military forces were constantly active in the region. Clinton even struck a lucrative pipeline deal with oil companies, promising to defend the pipeline from an anti-corporate faction in Afghanistan called the "Taliban"--by military occupation if necessary, if pipelines were damaged. Does that mean it's not Dubya's fault when he took office and found himself mired in an ongoing conflict?

Now Curiously Accepting War: FREEDOM! DEMOCRACY! WOMEN'S RIGHTS IN AFGHANISTAN! TOYOTA PRIUSES WITH COEXIST STICKERS!
All easily adaptable to Trump and DACA, or of course Trump and Syria. How superficially strange, how seemingly impossible, to reflect on how very passionate leftists are about the dignity of Arabs sometimes, yet how brutishly callous they are about the lives of Arabs when NATO is involved. Which is stupider; which is more horrible; which is worse: the leftist's lies, or the rightist's? Nowadays, the rightist claims to want to prevent the Islamization of the West, the browning of America, or whatever, and yet nothing done wrong in that regard is anyone's fault. Perhaps it's a lack of inner emotional security that makes them feel afraid of being judged, therefore they're afraid of judging? No, it can't be that, since they'll judge the other "side." But why the fear, the impossible and insurmountable fear, of judging those who have betrayed, are betraying, and will continue to betray, them? Why the infantile aversion to seeing their own imaginary paladin defile the statues of their beloved gods? It is not truly their ideals that they respect; it is something different, for the ignorant, wanton forgiveness they lavish upon an Obama or a Trump, as either of the latter pisses rampantly on whatever they all claimed to value, negates forever the idea that they ever actually cared about those things. Even most of the self-professed "Nazis" out there are interested in defending Trump the Dreamer-globalist now, just as most of the self-professed communist universalists in 2009 were defending Obama the saber-rattling capitalist. This grasping need--this insane, oh-so-pitiful retardation--is beyond the realms of analysis pertaining to independent, self-interested, rational actors.

Considering the horrible things Trump has done to America, there clearly is a media bias in favor of him. The ridiculous things they accuse him of make them appear to be biased against him, but consider: if you murdered someone and were at your murder trial, and the prosecutor came out, ignored the murder charge, and started screaming to the jury that you had 300 unpaid parking tickets and had once stolen change from a vending machine, would the jury perceive the setup? To a less discerning person, the prosecutor would indeed appear biased against the accused. His apparent lunacy, though, could distract the jury from the murder. The accused could have committed the murder in front of the jury members on the courthouse steps that same morning, filmed on 100 separate bystanders' iPhones, then signed an affidavit of agreement with the team of geneticists who verified that the accused's DNA was found on the handle of the knife buried in the victim's heart. And yet, if the prosecutor does his job well, the jury will try the man based on the shoddy speculative evidence of the 300 parking tickets, and the hearsay about stealing change from the vending machine, and completely forget about the murder.

To a bystander, screaming, "What about the murder, you idiots?!" the duped jury's behavior would seem like madness. But then, if you're familiar with the way people around here think, you'll see the the prosecutor having an obvious bias toward the parking ticket issue is the easiest and most effective way to get the jury to forget about the murder. They want to feel that they have done something right; have figured out the daily political sudoku; have been thoughtful and intelligent and "seen through attempts to trick them." And letting them figure out that the prosecutor is actually biased about those parking tickets, about the accused's wife being ugly, and any other irrelevant crap a creative defense attorney disguised as a prosecutor might think up, can help a group of weak ones take pride in discovering that there were no records of those parking tickets at city hall, everyone knew that prosecutor was a bastard, now let's free the accused and go out for beers, hooray! We're detectives! Can't fool us!

2 comments:

  1. TOYOTA PRIUSES WITH COEXIST STICKERS!

    Say no more. I know a laudable goal when I read/hear it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. creative defense attorney disguised as a prosecutor

    Hey that sounds like regulators who are captured by the mindsets of the entities they are supposed to regulate. Must be some weird coincidence or something.

    ReplyDelete